User:Aircorn/sandbox/test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/

Genetically modified crops cultivated in 2014[edit]

Herbicide tolerance[edit]

GMO Use Countries approved in First approved[1] Million hectares planted Notes
Alfalfa Animal feed[2] USA 2005 Approval withdrawn in 2007[3] and then re-approved in 2011[4]
Canola Cooking oil

Margarine

Emulsifiers in packaged foods[2]

Australia 2003
Canada 1995
Chile 2007[N 1]
USA 1995
Cotton Fiber
Cottonseed oil
Animal feed[2]
Argentina 2001 0.51[5] 460 000 ha stacked with insect resistance[5]
Australia 2002
Brazil 2008 0.3[6] 0.09 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[7]
Columbia 2004
Costa Rica 2008
Mexico 2000 0.16[8] 0.15 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[9]
Paraguay 2013
South Africa 2000 0.09[10] all apart from 450 ha stacked with insect tolerance[10]
USA 1994
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Argentina 1998 2.22[5] 1.98 million ha stacked with insect resistance[5]
Brazil 2007 8.00[11] 7.39 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[12]
Canada 1996
Colombia 2007 0.53[13] 45 000 ha stacked with insect tolerance[13]
Cuba 2011
European Union 1998 0.14[14] Grown in Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania[15]
Honduras 2001
Paraguay 2012
Philippines 2002 0.83[16] All stacked with insect tolerance
South Africa 2002 1.54[10] 1.13 million ha stacked with insect resistance[10]
USA 1995 26.22 ha stacked with insect resistance[14]
Uruguay 2003 .09[17] 72 000 ha stacked with insect resistance[17]
Vietnam 2014[N 2]
Soybean Animal feed

Soybean oil[2]

Argentina 1996 20.8[5]
Bolivia 2005 1.00[18]
Brazil 1998 29.1[19]
Canada 1995
Chile 2007
Costa Rica 2001
Mexico 1996
Paraguay 2004 3.3[20]
South Africa 2001 0.55[10]
USA 1993
Uruguay 1996 1.55[17]
Sugar Beet Food[21] Canada 2001
USA 1998 Commercialised 2007,[22] production blocked 2010, resumed 2011.[21]

Insect resistance[edit]

GMO Use Countries approved in First approved[23] Million hectares planted Notes
Cotton Fiber
Cottonseed oil
Animal feed[2]
Argentina 1998 0.49[5] 460 000 ha stacked with herbicide tolerance[5]
Australia 2003
Brazil 2005 0.37[24] 0.09 million ha are stacked with herbicide tolerance[25]
Burkina Faso 2009 0.65[26]
China 1997 3.9[27]
Colombia 2003
Costa Rica 2008
India 2002 11.6[28] Largest producer of Bt cotton[28]
Mexico 1996 0.15[29] All are stacked with herbicide tolerance[30]
Myanmar 2006[N 3] 0.32[31]
Pakistan 2010[N 3] 2.9[32]
Paraguay 2007
South Africa 1997 0.009[10] all stacked with herbicide resistance[10]
Sudan 2012 0.09[33]
USA 1995
Eggplant Food Bangladesh 2013 0.000012[34] 12 ha planted on 120 farms[34]
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Argentina 1998 2.76[5] 1.98 million ha stacked with herbicide tolerance[5]
Brazil 2005 11.87[35] 7.39 million ha are stacked with herbicide tolerance[35]
Columbia 2003 0.07[13] 45 000 ha stacked with insect tolerance[36]
Mexico 1996 .01[37] Centre of origin for maize[37]
Paraguay 2007
Philippines 2002 0.83 All stacked with herbicide resistance
South Africa 1997 1.73[10] 1.13 stacked with herbicide resistance[10]
Uruguay 2003 0.07[17] All stacked with herbicide tolerance[17]
USA 1995 26.22 ha stacked with herbicide tolerance
Poplar Tree China 1998 0.0005[38] 543 ha of bt poplar planted[27]

Other[edit]

GMO Use Trait Countries approved in First approved[39] Million hectares planted Notes
Canola Cooking oil

Margarine

Emulsifiers in packaged foods[2]

High laurate canola Canada 1996
USA 1994
Phytase production USA 1998
Carnation Ornamental Delayed senescence Australia 1995
Norway 1998
Modified flower colour Australia 1995
Columbia 2000[N 4] 0.000004[13] 4 ha grown in greenhouses for export[13]
European Union 1998[N 5]
Japan 2004
Malaysia 2012[N 6]
Norway 1997
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Increased lysine Canada 2006
USA 2006
Drought tolerance Canada 2010
USA 2011 0.275[14]
Melon Food Delayed senescence USA Approved for food use in 1999, but not for cultivation.
Papaya Food[2] Virus resistance China 2006 .008[27]
USA 1996 Most grown in Hawaii[2]
Petunia Ornamental Modified flower colour 1998[N 3]
Potato Food[2] Virus resistance Canada 1999
USA 1997
Industrial[40] Modified starch USA 2014
Rose Ornamental Modified flower colour Australia 2009[N 7]
Colombia 2010[N 8][N 9]
Japan 2008
USA 2011
Soybean Animal feed

Soybean oil[2]

Increased oleic acid production Argentina 2015
Canada 2000
USA 1997
Stearidonic acid production Canada 2011
USA 2011
Squash Food[2] Virus resistance USA 1994 0.01[2]
Sugar Cane Food Drought tolerance Indonesia 2013[N 2]
Tobacco Cigarettes Nicotine reduction USA 2002

Countries approving GMOs for food[edit]

Country GM food Ha planted in 2014[41]
Argentina Cotton 530 000
Maize 3 000 000
Soybean 20 800 000
Australia Canola 342 000
Carnation
Cotton 200 000
Bangladesh Eggplant 12
Brazil Cotton 600 000
Maize 12 500 000
Soybean 29 100 000
Bolivia Soybean 1 000 000
Burkina Faso Cotton 454,124
Canada Canola 8 000 000
Maize 1 400 000
Soybean 2 200 000
Sugar beet 15 000
Chile Maize 10 000
China Cotton 3 900 000
Papaya 8 475
Poplar 543
Sweet pepper
Tomato
Colombia Cotton 18 000
Maize 81 000
Costa Rica Cotton 36.3
Soybean 1.7
Cuba Maize 3 000
Czech Republic Maize 1,754
Egypt
European Union
Honduras Maize 29 000
India Cotton 11 600 000
Indonesia
Iran
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico Cotton 160 000
Maize 10 000
Myanmar Cotton 318,000
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan Cotton 2 850 000
Panama
Paraguay Soybean 3 900 000
Philippines Maize 831 000
Portugal Maize 8 542
Romania Maize 771
Russian Federation
Singapore
Slovakia Maize 441
South Africa Cotton 9 000
Maize 2 150 000
Soy bean 552 000
South Korea
Spain Maize 131,538
Sudan Cotton 90 000
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United States of America Alfalafa 862 000
Canola 685 000
Cotton 4 500 000
Maize 34 500 000
Papaya 1 000
Potato
Soybean 32 300 000
Squash 1 000
Sugar beet 479 000
Uruguay Maize 90 000
Soybean 1 550 000
Vietnam

Graph[edit]

Circle frame.svg

Traits found in commercilaised GM crops

  Herbicide tollerance (56.5%)
  Stacked (28.3%)
  Insect resistance (15.1%)
  Other (0.1%)

Reference[edit]

References

  1. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "All the GMOs Approved In the U.S.". TIME.com. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  3. ^ www.gmo-compass.org. "Lucerne - GMO Database". www.gmo-compass.org. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  4. ^ "UPDATE 3-U.S. farmers get approval to plant GMO alfalfa". Reuters. 2011-01-27. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Facts and trends - Argentina" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  6. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  7. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  8. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Facts and trends - South Africa" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  11. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  12. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  13. ^ a b c d e "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":8" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b c "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-08-24. 
  15. ^ "Infographics: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  16. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Philippines.pdf
  17. ^ a b c d e "Facts and trends- Uruguay" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  18. ^ "Facts and trends - Bolivia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  19. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  20. ^ "Facts and trends - Paraguay" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  21. ^ a b Tomson, Scott Kilman And Bill. "Modified Beet Gets New Life". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  22. ^ Pollack, Andrew (2007-11-27). "Round 2 for Biotech Beets". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  23. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  24. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  25. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  26. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Burkina%20Faso.pdf
  27. ^ a b c "Facts and trends- China" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  28. ^ a b "Facts and trends - India" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  29. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  30. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  31. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Myanmar.pdf
  32. ^ "Facts and trends - Pakistan" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  33. ^ "Facts and trends - Sudan" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  34. ^ a b "Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-02-16. 
  35. ^ a b "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  36. ^ "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  37. ^ a b http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  38. ^ Tao, Zhang; Shudong, Zhou (2003-06-01). "The Economic and Social Impact of GMOs in China". China Perspectives (in French) (47). ISSN 1996-4617. 
  39. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  40. ^ Press, Associated (2010-03-03). "GM potato to be grown in Europe". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  41. ^ "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-08-27. 

GMOs currently used for food[edit]

Just looking for sources for now, and thinking about scope for the highest level summary in GM food article, i.e. give readers a clear ande concise overview of what GM food is actually being eaten. Not sure of level of detail, for example, by country, or globally. Also, whole foods vs ingredients. I'm not familiar with this area, but seems like it may get complicated. For example, I imagine there are countries where there are GMOs approved for commercialization, but none actually grown, meanwhile, imported whole foods and/or foods with GM ingredients are available. Or countries with no GM regulations at all, but that import GM foods. Also, it may be difficult to find out about distribution for foods with GM ingredients.

At the moment, maybe ending up with a list of available GM whole foods is reasonable, with supplementary in-article explanation of the broad details about countries, whole food vs ingredients, and growing/domestic production vs importing.

ISAAA divides the approval into food, feed and cultivation. A lot of countries have approval for food but not cultivation so they can import food made from GMOs, but can't grow it themselves. For this table I just concentrated on cultivation as the food approvals would make it much larger. Also just because the have approval to import might not necessarily mean the do. I am thinking of adding a second column saying "first grown" or something. I would like to keep it as firsts as that way we won't need to update it all the time. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

It is common in deletion discussions for editors to advocate merging the article into another article as an alternative to deletion. While this may represent the best outcome in some cases, like when subjects lack independent notability but may still deserve mention in another article, the amount of AfD discussions closed as merge can create a significant backlog in articles to be merged. It is not uncommon for some of these articles to remain in this backlog for a period of two years or more. Therefore, merge votes should be avoided if used only as a middle ground. Instead, editors should always ask themselves, "What should be merged"?

Before nominating[edit]

Articles do not need to go through AfD discussions to be merged. If you think this is a likely outcome consider being bold and making the merge yourself, or starting a merge discussion on the talk page.

Voting merge at AFD[edit]

Unlike other deletion processes a merge close does not result in an immediate effect to the article. Someone still has to complete the merge. You should try to make the process as easy as possible for them. The difficulty associated with conducting merges varies. Adding the information to a list or creating a dedicated section from the article is relatively simple. Merging two articles that both cover the same topic can be difficult and time consuming. Is the effort of doing the merge going to result in an improved article?

Always provide a link to the target article, and make sure the link is correct. On occasion, articles for deletion discussion have closed as a mistaken consensus to link to a disambiguation page, because the first editor didn't check and provided the wrong link and no one else bothered to check either. It is not always best to target the parent article as this can often create undue problems. Is there a list or more specific article that will contain the information better. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilbrea Centre for Studies in Aging closed as merge to McMaster University, but the information fitted much better in McMaster Faculty of Social Sciences. Scan the target article to make sure the information is not already present. If it is redirect might be a better option.

When a discussion is closed as merge it has an impact on other articles. Think about how the merge will effect the target article, especially if it is a well developed one. If an article consists of a large amount of tables and stats it is unlikely to fit very well in an overview article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brussels Tigers). Articles with serious problems (non-neutral, poorly sourced, poorly written etc) are not seldom solved by merged. In some cases it can end up making the target article significantly worse. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Work and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S..

In an ideal world the exact content to be merged and the precise target location will be specified (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapel Hill State School). Be as specific as possible about what you want to merge. What is salvageable? Should the entire contents of the article be merged or only certain parts? Are there particular sentences, paragraphs or sections that you think should be merged? Are there any that definitely should not be? Have an idea where in the target article you think the information will fit. A particular section? Paragraph? Its own section? Mixed through the article? "Merge relevant information" or "merge selectively" are only marginally more useful than straight "merge" votes if no more details are provided.

If you believe the material should be retained in some way but you're not sure how, consider voting to keep and initiating or participating in a merger proposal on the article's talk page. If you've considered the issue and decided that no content needs to be merged, but you also think the AfD article's title is a plausible search term, vote to redirect. If a subject doesn't meet the usual criteria for merging, it probably shouldn't be merged as a result of AfD either.

Closing merge discussions[edit]

The following is not intended to replace the closers discretion when closing discussions. They are just points to contemplate that may make a merge easier for other editors to complete.

Straight keep and delete votes are generally given less weight than well rationed votes. Merges should be treated the same way (see WP:JUSTAVOTE). Consider weighting a merge vote without any further information closer to a redirect. If it is not obvious what needs to be merged you could relist the discussion asking for more specifics or even individually ping editors asking for more information.

If information is merged then a redirect has to be left behind. Vote for merge and delete should only be upheld in special circumstances (i.e. if the redirect left behind should absolutely not exist). If a close is made for merge and delete the article must first be moved before merging so the contribution history is kept intact.

If closing a long discussion as merge it can be helpful to summarise the consensus for how the merge should proceed. Especially if there are varying ideas on the target or information to be merged.

Completing a merge[edit]

Once a discussion is closed as merge then this needs to be carried out. There is no requirement for the closer to do this. The process is similar to closing a non-AFD merge. The key difference is that consensus is already established that the merge will be carried out. If you vote for a merge and it is closed as such, consider doing the merge yourself. There is no danger of being involved as consensus has been determined. As you are already familiar with the discussion you should be able to complete it easier than another editor that is new to it. The same applies to the creator of the merged article.

If you haven't already, read the AFD as it may contain details on what should be merged. Where possible these details should be followed. If there is no specific instructions on what to merge then it is up to the person conducting the merge on what to merge. Take care merging unsourced content and poorly sourced controversial content. Look at the target article and determine where it might fit. Sometimes the information is already there and can be expanded upon or a new section might need to be created. If the target article is well developed be extra careful when merging, especially if it is a good or featured article. Be careful of violating undue as often quite specific articles get merged into more overview ones.

When merging you must say it is a merge and link back to the merged article. This step is required as part of the projects licensing agreement. Leave a redirect behind at the merged article targeted as close to the merged content as possible. You may wish to add {{rcats}} to the redirect. If information you merged gets removed this should not generally be considered as going against the AFD consensus as it has now become part of the normal editing process. If you can not think of a feasible way to merge the information and their is no guidance at the AFD consider just redirecting the article or leaving a note at the targets talk page.

Good merge votes[edit]

A good merge vote should do more than just specify where an article could be merged. It should also specify what should be merged. Should the entire contents of the article be merged or only certain parts? If the destination article is long, what section should it be merged to? Your vote will be more helpful and constructive if you can specify. Conversely, if you believe the material should be retained in some way but you're not sure how, consider voting to keep and initiating or participating in a merger proposal on the article's talk page. If you've considered the issue and decided that no content needs to be merged, but you also think the AfD article's title is a plausible search term, vote to redirect. Always provide a link to the target article, and make sure the link is correct. On occasion, articles for deletion discussion have closed as a mistaken consensus to link to a disambiguation page, because the first editor didn't check and provided the wrong link and no one else bothered to check either.

Bad merge votes[edit]

Don't just identify a related topic and vote to merge there without further explanation. This is only barely more useful than a vote to keep or delete without a reason.

When a merge may not be appropriate[edit]

  • First, if a subject doesn't meet the usual criteria for merging, it probably shouldn't be merged as a result of AfD either.
  • If you don't believe an AfD subject Foo is independently notable but merits mention on another article Bar, check to see what coverage of Foo already exists at Bar. If the coverage is sufficient, you should probably vote to redirect (or delete, if Foo is an implausible search term).
Example: The AfD for Ron Burgundy was closed as a merge with Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy#Plot. But as one of the merge voters put it, Ron Burgundy was "completely redundant" to that section. Four months later, it was redirected without merging.

When a merge is appropriate[edit]

  • Subjects that lack independent notability may still deserve mention in another article.
Example: Agnes Skinner was merged (although not through AfD) to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. While consensus was against her having her own article, deletion wasn't necessary (cf. WP:NLISTITEM).
  • Suppose a section of a larger article Bar has been split into an article Foo, and an editor lists Foo at AfD. If you don't think Foo works as its own article, you could vote to merge it back into Bar (some users refer to this as an upmerge).

See also[edit]

http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/

Genetically modified crops cultivated in 2014[edit]

Herbicide tolerance[edit]

GMO Use Countries approved in First approved[1] Million hectares planted Notes
Alfalfa Animal feed[2] USA 2005 Approval withdrawn in 2007[3] and then re-approved in 2011[4]
Canola Cooking oil

Margarine

Emulsifiers in packaged foods[2]

Australia 2003
Canada 1995
Chile 2007[N 10]
USA 1995
Cotton Fiber
Cottonseed oil
Animal feed[2]
Argentina 2001 0.51[5] 460 000 ha stacked with insect resistance[5]
Australia 2002
Brazil 2008 0.3[6] 0.09 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[7]
Columbia 2004
Costa Rica 2008
Mexico 2000 0.16[8] 0.15 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[9]
Paraguay 2013
South Africa 2000 0.09[10] all apart from 450 ha stacked with insect tolerance[10]
USA 1994
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Argentina 1998 2.22[5] 1.98 million ha stacked with insect resistance[5]
Brazil 2007 8.00[11] 7.39 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[12]
Canada 1996
Colombia 2007 0.53[13] 45 000 ha stacked with insect tolerance[13]
Cuba 2011
European Union 1998 0.14[14] Grown in Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania[15]
Honduras 2001
Paraguay 2012
Philippines 2002 0.83[16] All stacked with insect tolerance
South Africa 2002 1.54[10] 1.13 million ha stacked with insect resistance[10]
USA 1995 26.22 ha stacked with insect resistance[14]
Uruguay 2003 .09[17] 72 000 ha stacked with insect resistance[17]
Vietnam 2014[N 2]
Soybean Animal feed

Soybean oil[2]

Argentina 1996 20.8[5]
Bolivia 2005 1.00[18]
Brazil 1998 29.1[19]
Canada 1995
Chile 2007
Costa Rica 2001
Mexico 1996
Paraguay 2004 3.3[20]
South Africa 2001 0.55[10]
USA 1993
Uruguay 1996 1.55[17]
Sugar Beet Food[21] Canada 2001
USA 1998 Commercialised 2007,[22] production blocked 2010, resumed 2011.[21]

Insect resistance[edit]

GMO Use Countries approved in First approved[23] Million hectares planted Notes
Cotton Fiber
Cottonseed oil
Animal feed[2]
Argentina 1998 0.49[5] 460 000 ha stacked with herbicide tolerance[5]
Australia 2003
Brazil 2005 0.37[24] 0.09 million ha are stacked with herbicide tolerance[25]
Burkina Faso 2009 0.65[26]
China 1997 3.9[27]
Colombia 2003
Costa Rica 2008
India 2002 11.6[28] Largest producer of Bt cotton[28]
Mexico 1996 0.15[29] All are stacked with herbicide tolerance[30]
Myanmar 2006[N 3] 0.32[31]
Pakistan 2010[N 3] 2.9[32]
Paraguay 2007
South Africa 1997 0.009[10] all stacked with herbicide resistance[10]
Sudan 2012 0.09[33]
USA 1995
Eggplant Food Bangladesh 2013 0.000012[34] 12 ha planted on 120 farms[34]
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Argentina 1998 2.76[5] 1.98 million ha stacked with herbicide tolerance[5]
Brazil 2005 11.87[35] 7.39 million ha are stacked with herbicide tolerance[35]
Columbia 2003 0.07[13] 45 000 ha stacked with insect tolerance[36]
Mexico 1996 .01[37] Centre of origin for maize[37]
Paraguay 2007
Philippines 2002 0.83 All stacked with herbicide resistance
South Africa 1997 1.73[10] 1.13 stacked with herbicide resistance[10]
Uruguay 2003 0.07[17] All stacked with herbicide tolerance[17]
USA 1995 26.22 ha stacked with herbicide tolerance
Poplar Tree China 1998 0.0005[38] 543 ha of bt poplar planted[27]

Other[edit]

GMO Use Trait Countries approved in First approved[39] Million hectares planted Notes
Canola Cooking oil

Margarine

Emulsifiers in packaged foods[2]

High laurate canola Canada 1996
USA 1994
Phytase production USA 1998
Carnation Ornamental Delayed senescence Australia 1995
Norway 1998
Modified flower colour Australia 1995
Columbia 2000[N 11] 0.000004[13] 4 ha grown in greenhouses for export[13]
European Union 1998[N 12]
Japan 2004
Malaysia 2012[N 13]
Norway 1997
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Increased lysine Canada 2006
USA 2006
Drought tolerance Canada 2010
USA 2011 0.275[14]
Melon Food Delayed senescence USA Approved for food use in 1999, but not for cultivation.
Papaya Food[2] Virus resistance China 2006 .008[27]
USA 1996 Most grown in Hawaii[2]
Petunia Ornamental Modified flower colour 1998[N 3]
Potato Food[2] Virus resistance Canada 1999
USA 1997
Industrial[40] Modified starch USA 2014
Rose Ornamental Modified flower colour Australia 2009[N 14]
Colombia 2010[N 15][N 16]
Japan 2008
USA 2011
Soybean Animal feed

Soybean oil[2]

Increased oleic acid production Argentina 2015
Canada 2000
USA 1997
Stearidonic acid production Canada 2011
USA 2011
Squash Food[2] Virus resistance USA 1994 0.01[2]
Sugar Cane Food Drought tolerance Indonesia 2013[N 2]
Tobacco Cigarettes Nicotine reduction USA 2002

Countries approving GMOs for food[edit]

Country GM food Ha planted in 2014[41]
Argentina Cotton 530 000
Maize 3 000 000
Soybean 20 800 000
Australia Canola 342 000
Carnation
Cotton 200 000
Bangladesh Eggplant 12
Brazil Cotton 600 000
Maize 12 500 000
Soybean 29 100 000
Bolivia Soybean 1 000 000
Burkina Faso Cotton 454,124
Canada Canola 8 000 000
Maize 1 400 000
Soybean 2 200 000
Sugar beet 15 000
Chile Maize 10 000
China Cotton 3 900 000
Papaya 8 475
Poplar 543
Sweet pepper
Tomato
Colombia Cotton 18 000
Maize 81 000
Costa Rica Cotton 36.3
Soybean 1.7
Cuba Maize 3 000
Czech Republic Maize 1,754
Egypt
European Union
Honduras Maize 29 000
India Cotton 11 600 000
Indonesia
Iran
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico Cotton 160 000
Maize 10 000
Myanmar Cotton 318,000
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan Cotton 2 850 000
Panama
Paraguay Soybean 3 900 000
Philippines Maize 831 000
Portugal Maize 8 542
Romania Maize 771
Russian Federation
Singapore
Slovakia Maize 441
South Africa Cotton 9 000
Maize 2 150 000
Soy bean 552 000
South Korea
Spain Maize 131,538
Sudan Cotton 90 000
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United States of America Alfalafa 862 000
Canola 685 000
Cotton 4 500 000
Maize 34 500 000
Papaya 1 000
Potato
Soybean 32 300 000
Squash 1 000
Sugar beet 479 000
Uruguay Maize 90 000
Soybean 1 550 000
Vietnam

Graph[edit]

Circle frame.svg

Traits found in commercilaised GM crops

  Herbicide tollerance (56.5%)
  Stacked (28.3%)
  Insect resistance (15.1%)
  Other (0.1%)

Reference[edit]

References

  1. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "All the GMOs Approved In the U.S.". TIME.com. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  3. ^ www.gmo-compass.org. "Lucerne - GMO Database". www.gmo-compass.org. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  4. ^ "UPDATE 3-U.S. farmers get approval to plant GMO alfalfa". Reuters. 2011-01-27. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Facts and trends - Argentina" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  6. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  7. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  8. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Facts and trends - South Africa" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  11. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  12. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  13. ^ a b c d e "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":8" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b c "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-08-24. 
  15. ^ "Infographics: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  16. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Philippines.pdf
  17. ^ a b c d e "Facts and trends- Uruguay" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  18. ^ "Facts and trends - Bolivia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  19. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  20. ^ "Facts and trends - Paraguay" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  21. ^ a b Tomson, Scott Kilman And Bill. "Modified Beet Gets New Life". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  22. ^ Pollack, Andrew (2007-11-27). "Round 2 for Biotech Beets". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  23. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  24. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  25. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  26. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Burkina%20Faso.pdf
  27. ^ a b c "Facts and trends- China" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  28. ^ a b "Facts and trends - India" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  29. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  30. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  31. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Myanmar.pdf
  32. ^ "Facts and trends - Pakistan" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  33. ^ "Facts and trends - Sudan" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  34. ^ a b "Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-02-16. 
  35. ^ a b "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  36. ^ "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  37. ^ a b http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  38. ^ Tao, Zhang; Shudong, Zhou (2003-06-01). "The Economic and Social Impact of GMOs in China". China Perspectives (in French) (47). ISSN 1996-4617. 
  39. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  40. ^ Press, Associated (2010-03-03). "GM potato to be grown in Europe". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  41. ^ "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-08-27. 

GMOs currently used for food[edit]

Just looking for sources for now, and thinking about scope for the highest level summary in GM food article, i.e. give readers a clear ande concise overview of what GM food is actually being eaten. Not sure of level of detail, for example, by country, or globally. Also, whole foods vs ingredients. I'm not familiar with this area, but seems like it may get complicated. For example, I imagine there are countries where there are GMOs approved for commercialization, but none actually grown, meanwhile, imported whole foods and/or foods with GM ingredients are available. Or countries with no GM regulations at all, but that import GM foods. Also, it may be difficult to find out about distribution for foods with GM ingredients.

At the moment, maybe ending up with a list of available GM whole foods is reasonable, with supplementary in-article explanation of the broad details about countries, whole food vs ingredients, and growing/domestic production vs importing.

ISAAA divides the approval into food, feed and cultivation. A lot of countries have approval for food but not cultivation so they can import food made from GMOs, but can't grow it themselves. For this table I just concentrated on cultivation as the food approvals would make it much larger. Also just because the have approval to import might not necessarily mean the do. I am thinking of adding a second column saying "first grown" or something. I would like to keep it as firsts as that way we won't need to update it all the time. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

It is common in deletion discussions for editors to advocate merging the article into another article as an alternative to deletion. While this may represent the best outcome in some cases, like when subjects lack independent notability but may still deserve mention in another article, the amount of AfD discussions closed as merge can create a significant backlog in articles to be merged. It is not uncommon for some of these articles to remain in this backlog for a period of two years or more. Therefore, merge votes should be avoided if used only as a middle ground. Instead, editors should always ask themselves, "What should be merged"?

Before nominating[edit]

Articles do not need to go through AfD discussions to be merged. If you think this is a likely outcome consider being bold and making the merge yourself, or starting a merge discussion on the talk page.

Voting merge at AFD[edit]

Unlike other deletion processes a merge close does not result in an immediate effect to the article. Someone still has to complete the merge. You should try to make the process as easy as possible for them. The difficulty associated with conducting merges varies. Adding the information to a list or creating a dedicated section from the article is relatively simple. Merging two articles that both cover the same topic can be difficult and time consuming. Is the effort of doing the merge going to result in an improved article?

Always provide a link to the target article, and make sure the link is correct. On occasion, articles for deletion discussion have closed as a mistaken consensus to link to a disambiguation page, because the first editor didn't check and provided the wrong link and no one else bothered to check either. It is not always best to target the parent article as this can often create undue problems. Is there a list or more specific article that will contain the information better. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilbrea Centre for Studies in Aging closed as merge to McMaster University, but the information fitted much better in McMaster Faculty of Social Sciences. Scan the target article to make sure the information is not already present. If it is redirect might be a better option.

When a discussion is closed as merge it has an impact on other articles. Think about how the merge will effect the target article, especially if it is a well developed one. If an article consists of a large amount of tables and stats it is unlikely to fit very well in an overview article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brussels Tigers). Articles with serious problems (non-neutral, poorly sourced, poorly written etc) are not seldom solved by merged. In some cases it can end up making the target article significantly worse. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Work and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S..

In an ideal world the exact content to be merged and the precise target location will be specified (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapel Hill State School). Be as specific as possible about what you want to merge. What is salvageable? Should the entire contents of the article be merged or only certain parts? Are there particular sentences, paragraphs or sections that you think should be merged? Are there any that definitely should not be? Have an idea where in the target article you think the information will fit. A particular section? Paragraph? Its own section? Mixed through the article? "Merge relevant information" or "merge selectively" are only marginally more useful than straight "merge" votes if no more details are provided.

If you believe the material should be retained in some way but you're not sure how, consider voting to keep and initiating or participating in a merger proposal on the article's talk page. If you've considered the issue and decided that no content needs to be merged, but you also think the AfD article's title is a plausible search term, vote to redirect. If a subject doesn't meet the usual criteria for merging, it probably shouldn't be merged as a result of AfD either.

Closing merge discussions[edit]

The following is not intended to replace the closers discretion when closing discussions. They are just points to contemplate that may make a merge easier for other editors to complete.

Straight keep and delete votes are generally given less weight than well rationed votes. Merges should be treated the same way (see WP:JUSTAVOTE). Consider weighting a merge vote without any further information closer to a redirect. If it is not obvious what needs to be merged you could relist the discussion asking for more specifics or even individually ping editors asking for more information.

If information is merged then a redirect has to be left behind. Vote for merge and delete should only be upheld in special circumstances (i.e. if the redirect left behind should absolutely not exist). If a close is made for merge and delete the article must first be moved before merging so the contribution history is kept intact.

If closing a long discussion as merge it can be helpful to summarise the consensus for how the merge should proceed. Especially if there are varying ideas on the target or information to be merged.

Completing a merge[edit]

Once a discussion is closed as merge then this needs to be carried out. There is no requirement for the closer to do this. The process is similar to closing a non-AFD merge. The key difference is that consensus is already established that the merge will be carried out. If you vote for a merge and it is closed as such, consider doing the merge yourself. There is no danger of being involved as consensus has been determined. As you are already familiar with the discussion you should be able to complete it easier than another editor that is new to it. The same applies to the creator of the merged article.

If you haven't already, read the AFD as it may contain details on what should be merged. Where possible these details should be followed. If there is no specific instructions on what to merge then it is up to the person conducting the merge on what to merge. Take care merging unsourced content and poorly sourced controversial content. Look at the target article and determine where it might fit. Sometimes the information is already there and can be expanded upon or a new section might need to be created. If the target article is well developed be extra careful when merging, especially if it is a good or featured article. Be careful of violating undue as often quite specific articles get merged into more overview ones.

When merging you must say it is a merge and link back to the merged article. This step is required as part of the projects licensing agreement. Leave a redirect behind at the merged article targeted as close to the merged content as possible. You may wish to add {{rcats}} to the redirect. If information you merged gets removed this should not generally be considered as going against the AFD consensus as it has now become part of the normal editing process. If you can not think of a feasible way to merge the information and their is no guidance at the AFD consider just redirecting the article or leaving a note at the targets talk page.

Good merge votes[edit]

A good merge vote should do more than just specify where an article could be merged. It should also specify what should be merged. Should the entire contents of the article be merged or only certain parts? If the destination article is long, what section should it be merged to? Your vote will be more helpful and constructive if you can specify. Conversely, if you believe the material should be retained in some way but you're not sure how, consider voting to keep and initiating or participating in a merger proposal on the article's talk page. If you've considered the issue and decided that no content needs to be merged, but you also think the AfD article's title is a plausible search term, vote to redirect. Always provide a link to the target article, and make sure the link is correct. On occasion, articles for deletion discussion have closed as a mistaken consensus to link to a disambiguation page, because the first editor didn't check and provided the wrong link and no one else bothered to check either.

Bad merge votes[edit]

Don't just identify a related topic and vote to merge there without further explanation. This is only barely more useful than a vote to keep or delete without a reason.

When a merge may not be appropriate[edit]

  • First, if a subject doesn't meet the usual criteria for merging, it probably shouldn't be merged as a result of AfD either.
  • If you don't believe an AfD subject Foo is independently notable but merits mention on another article Bar, check to see what coverage of Foo already exists at Bar. If the coverage is sufficient, you should probably vote to redirect (or delete, if Foo is an implausible search term).
Example: The AfD for Ron Burgundy was closed as a merge with Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy#Plot. But as one of the merge voters put it, Ron Burgundy was "completely redundant" to that section. Four months later, it was redirected without merging.

When a merge is appropriate[edit]

  • Subjects that lack independent notability may still deserve mention in another article.
Example: Agnes Skinner was merged (although not through AfD) to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. While consensus was against her having her own article, deletion wasn't necessary (cf. WP:NLISTITEM).
  • Suppose a section of a larger article Bar has been split into an article Foo, and an editor lists Foo at AfD. If you don't think Foo works as its own article, you could vote to merge it back into Bar (some users refer to this as an upmerge).

See also[edit]

http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/cropslist/

Genetically modified crops cultivated in 2014[edit]

Herbicide tolerance[edit]

GMO Use Countries approved in First approved[1] Million hectares planted Notes
Alfalfa Animal feed[2] USA 2005 Approval withdrawn in 2007[3] and then re-approved in 2011[4]
Canola Cooking oil

Margarine

Emulsifiers in packaged foods[2]

Australia 2003
Canada 1995
Chile 2007[N 17]
USA 1995
Cotton Fiber
Cottonseed oil
Animal feed[2]
Argentina 2001 0.51[5] 460 000 ha stacked with insect resistance[5]
Australia 2002
Brazil 2008 0.3[6] 0.09 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[7]
Columbia 2004
Costa Rica 2008
Mexico 2000 0.16[8] 0.15 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[9]
Paraguay 2013
South Africa 2000 0.09[10] all apart from 450 ha stacked with insect tolerance[10]
USA 1994
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Argentina 1998 2.22[5] 1.98 million ha stacked with insect resistance[5]
Brazil 2007 8.00[11] 7.39 million ha are stacked with insect resistance[12]
Canada 1996
Colombia 2007 0.53[13] 45 000 ha stacked with insect tolerance[13]
Cuba 2011
European Union 1998 0.14[14] Grown in Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania[15]
Honduras 2001
Paraguay 2012
Philippines 2002 0.83[16] All stacked with insect tolerance
South Africa 2002 1.54[10] 1.13 million ha stacked with insect resistance[10]
USA 1995 26.22 ha stacked with insect resistance[14]
Uruguay 2003 .09[17] 72 000 ha stacked with insect resistance[17]
Vietnam 2014[N 2]
Soybean Animal feed

Soybean oil[2]

Argentina 1996 20.8[5]
Bolivia 2005 1.00[18]
Brazil 1998 29.1[19]
Canada 1995
Chile 2007
Costa Rica 2001
Mexico 1996
Paraguay 2004 3.3[20]
South Africa 2001 0.55[10]
USA 1993
Uruguay 1996 1.55[17]
Sugar Beet Food[21] Canada 2001
USA 1998 Commercialised 2007,[22] production blocked 2010, resumed 2011.[21]

Insect resistance[edit]

GMO Use Countries approved in First approved[23] Million hectares planted Notes
Cotton Fiber
Cottonseed oil
Animal feed[2]
Argentina 1998 0.49[5] 460 000 ha stacked with herbicide tolerance[5]
Australia 2003
Brazil 2005 0.37[24] 0.09 million ha are stacked with herbicide tolerance[25]
Burkina Faso 2009 0.65[26]
China 1997 3.9[27]
Colombia 2003
Costa Rica 2008
India 2002 11.6[28] Largest producer of Bt cotton[28]
Mexico 1996 0.15[29] All are stacked with herbicide tolerance[30]
Myanmar 2006[N 3] 0.32[31]
Pakistan 2010[N 3] 2.9[32]
Paraguay 2007
South Africa 1997 0.009[10] all stacked with herbicide resistance[10]
Sudan 2012 0.09[33]
USA 1995
Eggplant Food Bangladesh 2013 0.000012[34] 12 ha planted on 120 farms[34]
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Argentina 1998 2.76[5] 1.98 million ha stacked with herbicide tolerance[5]
Brazil 2005 11.87[35] 7.39 million ha are stacked with herbicide tolerance[35]
Columbia 2003 0.07[13] 45 000 ha stacked with insect tolerance[36]
Mexico 1996 .01[37] Centre of origin for maize[37]
Paraguay 2007
Philippines 2002 0.83 All stacked with herbicide resistance
South Africa 1997 1.73[10] 1.13 stacked with herbicide resistance[10]
Uruguay 2003 0.07[17] All stacked with herbicide tolerance[17]
USA 1995 26.22 ha stacked with herbicide tolerance
Poplar Tree China 1998 0.0005[38] 543 ha of bt poplar planted[27]

Other[edit]

GMO Use Trait Countries approved in First approved[39] Million hectares planted Notes
Canola Cooking oil

Margarine

Emulsifiers in packaged foods[2]

High laurate canola Canada 1996
USA 1994
Phytase production USA 1998
Carnation Ornamental Delayed senescence Australia 1995
Norway 1998
Modified flower colour Australia 1995
Columbia 2000[N 18] 0.000004[13] 4 ha grown in greenhouses for export[13]
European Union 1998[N 19]
Japan 2004
Malaysia 2012[N 20]
Norway 1997
Maize Animal feed

high-fructose corn syrup

corn starch[2]

Increased lysine Canada 2006
USA 2006
Drought tolerance Canada 2010
USA 2011 0.275[14]
Melon Food Delayed senescence USA Approved for food use in 1999, but not for cultivation.
Papaya Food[2] Virus resistance China 2006 .008[27]
USA 1996 Most grown in Hawaii[2]
Petunia Ornamental Modified flower colour 1998[N 3]
Potato Food[2] Virus resistance Canada 1999
USA 1997
Industrial[40] Modified starch USA 2014
Rose Ornamental Modified flower colour Australia 2009[N 21]
Colombia 2010[N 22][N 23]
Japan 2008
USA 2011
Soybean Animal feed

Soybean oil[2]

Increased oleic acid production Argentina 2015
Canada 2000
USA 1997
Stearidonic acid production Canada 2011
USA 2011
Squash Food[2] Virus resistance USA 1994 0.01[2]
Sugar Cane Food Drought tolerance Indonesia 2013[N 2]
Tobacco Cigarettes Nicotine reduction USA 2002

Countries approving GMOs for food[edit]

Country GM food Ha planted in 2014[41]
Argentina Cotton 530 000
Maize 3 000 000
Soybean 20 800 000
Australia Canola 342 000
Carnation
Cotton 200 000
Bangladesh Eggplant 12
Brazil Cotton 600 000
Maize 12 500 000
Soybean 29 100 000
Bolivia Soybean 1 000 000
Burkina Faso Cotton 454,124
Canada Canola 8 000 000
Maize 1 400 000
Soybean 2 200 000
Sugar beet 15 000
Chile Maize 10 000
China Cotton 3 900 000
Papaya 8 475
Poplar 543
Sweet pepper
Tomato
Colombia Cotton 18 000
Maize 81 000
Costa Rica Cotton 36.3
Soybean 1.7
Cuba Maize 3 000
Czech Republic Maize 1,754
Egypt
European Union
Honduras Maize 29 000
India Cotton 11 600 000
Indonesia
Iran
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico Cotton 160 000
Maize 10 000
Myanmar Cotton 318,000
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan Cotton 2 850 000
Panama
Paraguay Soybean 3 900 000
Philippines Maize 831 000
Portugal Maize 8 542
Romania Maize 771
Russian Federation
Singapore
Slovakia Maize 441
South Africa Cotton 9 000
Maize 2 150 000
Soy bean 552 000
South Korea
Spain Maize 131,538
Sudan Cotton 90 000
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United States of America Alfalafa 862 000
Canola 685 000
Cotton 4 500 000
Maize 34 500 000
Papaya 1 000
Potato
Soybean 32 300 000
Squash 1 000
Sugar beet 479 000
Uruguay Maize 90 000
Soybean 1 550 000
Vietnam

Graph[edit]

Circle frame.svg

Traits found in commercilaised GM crops

  Herbicide tollerance (56.5%)
  Stacked (28.3%)
  Insect resistance (15.1%)
  Other (0.1%)

Reference[edit]

References

  1. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "All the GMOs Approved In the U.S.". TIME.com. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  3. ^ www.gmo-compass.org. "Lucerne - GMO Database". www.gmo-compass.org. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  4. ^ "UPDATE 3-U.S. farmers get approval to plant GMO alfalfa". Reuters. 2011-01-27. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Facts and trends - Argentina" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  6. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  7. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  8. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  9. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Facts and trends - South Africa" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  11. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  12. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  13. ^ a b c d e "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":8" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b c "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-08-24. 
  15. ^ "Infographics: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-02-11. 
  16. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Philippines.pdf
  17. ^ a b c d e "Facts and trends- Uruguay" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  18. ^ "Facts and trends - Bolivia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  19. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  20. ^ "Facts and trends - Paraguay" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  21. ^ a b Tomson, Scott Kilman And Bill. "Modified Beet Gets New Life". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  22. ^ Pollack, Andrew (2007-11-27). "Round 2 for Biotech Beets". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  23. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  24. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  25. ^ "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  26. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Burkina%20Faso.pdf
  27. ^ a b c "Facts and trends- China" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  28. ^ a b "Facts and trends - India" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  29. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  30. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  31. ^ http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Myanmar.pdf
  32. ^ "Facts and trends - Pakistan" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  33. ^ "Facts and trends - Sudan" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  34. ^ a b "Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-02-16. 
  35. ^ a b "Facts and Trends - Brazil" (PDF). International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications. 
  36. ^ "Facts and trends - Columbia" (PDF). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 
  37. ^ a b http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/download/Facts%20and%20Trends%20-%20Mexico.pdf
  38. ^ Tao, Zhang; Shudong, Zhou (2003-06-01). "The Economic and Social Impact of GMOs in China". China Perspectives (in French) (47). ISSN 1996-4617. 
  39. ^ "GM Crops List | GM Approval Database- ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-01-30. 
  40. ^ Press, Associated (2010-03-03). "GM potato to be grown in Europe". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-02-15. 
  41. ^ "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014 - ISAAA Brief 49-2014 | ISAAA.org". www.isaaa.org. Retrieved 2016-08-27. 

GMOs currently used for food[edit]

Just looking for sources for now, and thinking about scope for the highest level summary in GM food article, i.e. give readers a clear ande concise overview of what GM food is actually being eaten. Not sure of level of detail, for example, by country, or globally. Also, whole foods vs ingredients. I'm not familiar with this area, but seems like it may get complicated. For example, I imagine there are countries where there are GMOs approved for commercialization, but none actually grown, meanwhile, imported whole foods and/or foods with GM ingredients are available. Or countries with no GM regulations at all, but that import GM foods. Also, it may be difficult to find out about distribution for foods with GM ingredients.

At the moment, maybe ending up with a list of available GM whole foods is reasonable, with supplementary in-article explanation of the broad details about countries, whole food vs ingredients, and growing/domestic production vs importing.

ISAAA divides the approval into food, feed and cultivation. A lot of countries have approval for food but not cultivation so they can import food made from GMOs, but can't grow it themselves. For this table I just concentrated on cultivation as the food approvals would make it much larger. Also just because the have approval to import might not necessarily mean the do. I am thinking of adding a second column saying "first grown" or something. I would like to keep it as firsts as that way we won't need to update it all the time. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

It is common in deletion discussions for editors to advocate merging the article into another article as an alternative to deletion. While this may represent the best outcome in some cases, like when subjects lack independent notability but may still deserve mention in another article, the amount of AfD discussions closed as merge can create a significant backlog in articles to be merged. It is not uncommon for some of these articles to remain in this backlog for a period of two years or more. Therefore, merge votes should be avoided if used only as a middle ground. Instead, editors should always ask themselves, "What should be merged"?

Before nominating[edit]

Articles do not need to go through AfD discussions to be merged. If you think this is a likely outcome consider being bold and making the merge yourself, or starting a merge discussion on the talk page.

Voting merge at AFD[edit]

Unlike other deletion processes a merge close does not result in an immediate effect to the article. Someone still has to complete the merge. You should try to make the process as easy as possible for them. The difficulty associated with conducting merges varies. Adding the information to a list or creating a dedicated section from the article is relatively simple. Merging two articles that both cover the same topic can be difficult and time consuming. Is the effort of doing the merge going to result in an improved article?

Always provide a link to the target article, and make sure the link is correct. On occasion, articles for deletion discussion have closed as a mistaken consensus to link to a disambiguation page, because the first editor didn't check and provided the wrong link and no one else bothered to check either. It is not always best to target the parent article as this can often create undue problems. Is there a list or more specific article that will contain the information better. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilbrea Centre for Studies in Aging closed as merge to McMaster University, but the information fitted much better in McMaster Faculty of Social Sciences. Scan the target article to make sure the information is not already present. If it is redirect might be a better option.

When a discussion is closed as merge it has an impact on other articles. Think about how the merge will effect the target article, especially if it is a well developed one. If an article consists of a large amount of tables and stats it is unlikely to fit very well in an overview article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brussels Tigers). Articles with serious problems (non-neutral, poorly sourced, poorly written etc) are not seldom solved by merged. In some cases it can end up making the target article significantly worse. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Work and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S..

In an ideal world the exact content to be merged and the precise target location will be specified (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapel Hill State School). Be as specific as possible about what you want to merge. What is salvageable? Should the entire contents of the article be merged or only certain parts? Are there particular sentences, paragraphs or sections that you think should be merged? Are there any that definitely should not be? Have an idea where in the target article you think the information will fit. A particular section? Paragraph? Its own section? Mixed through the article? "Merge relevant information" or "merge selectively" are only marginally more useful than straight "merge" votes if no more details are provided.

If you believe the material should be retained in some way but you're not sure how, consider voting to keep and initiating or participating in a merger proposal on the article's talk page. If you've considered the issue and decided that no content needs to be merged, but you also think the AfD article's title is a plausible search term, vote to redirect. If a subject doesn't meet the usual criteria for merging, it probably shouldn't be merged as a result of AfD either.

Closing merge discussions[edit]

The following is not intended to replace the closers discretion when closing discussions. They are just points to contemplate that may make a merge easier for other editors to complete.

Straight keep and delete votes are generally given less weight than well rationed votes. Merges should be treated the same way (see WP:JUSTAVOTE). Consider weighting a merge vote without any further information closer to a redirect. If it is not obvious what needs to be merged you could relist the discussion asking for more specifics or even individually ping editors asking for more information.

If information is merged then a redirect has to be left behind. Vote for merge and delete should only be upheld in special circumstances (i.e. if the redirect left behind should absolutely not exist). If a close is made for merge and delete the article must first be moved before merging so the contribution history is kept intact.

If closing a long discussion as merge it can be helpful to summarise the consensus for how the merge should proceed. Especially if there are varying ideas on the target or information to be merged.

Completing a merge[edit]

Once a discussion is closed as merge then this needs to be carried out. There is no requirement for the closer to do this. The process is similar to closing a non-AFD merge. The key difference is that consensus is already established that the merge will be carried out. If you vote for a merge and it is closed as such, consider doing the merge yourself. There is no danger of being involved as consensus has been determined. As you are already familiar with the discussion you should be able to complete it easier than another editor that is new to it. The same applies to the creator of the merged article.

If you haven't already, read the AFD as it may contain details on what should be merged. Where possible these details should be followed. If there is no specific instructions on what to merge then it is up to the person conducting the merge on what to merge. Take care merging unsourced content and poorly sourced controversial content. Look at the target article and determine where it might fit. Sometimes the information is already there and can be expanded upon or a new section might need to be created. If the target article is well developed be extra careful when merging, especially if it is a good or featured article. Be careful of violating undue as often quite specific articles get merged into more overview ones.

When merging you must say it is a merge and link back to the merged article. This step is required as part of the projects licensing agreement. Leave a redirect behind at the merged article targeted as close to the merged content as possible. You may wish to add {{rcats}} to the redirect. If information you merged gets removed this should not generally be considered as going against the AFD consensus as it has now become part of the normal editing process. If you can not think of a feasible way to merge the information and their is no guidance at the AFD consider just redirecting the article or leaving a note at the targets talk page.

Good merge votes[edit]

A good merge vote should do more than just specify where an article could be merged. It should also specify what should be merged. Should the entire contents of the article be merged or only certain parts? If the destination article is long, what section should it be merged to? Your vote will be more helpful and constructive if you can specify. Conversely, if you believe the material should be retained in some way but you're not sure how, consider voting to keep and initiating or participating in a merger proposal on the article's talk page. If you've considered the issue and decided that no content needs to be merged, but you also think the AfD article's title is a plausible search term, vote to redirect. Always provide a link to the target article, and make sure the link is correct. On occasion, articles for deletion discussion have closed as a mistaken consensus to link to a disambiguation page, because the first editor didn't check and provided the wrong link and no one else bothered to check either.

Bad merge votes[edit]

Don't just identify a related topic and vote to merge there without further explanation. This is only barely more useful than a vote to keep or delete without a reason.

When a merge may not be appropriate[edit]

  • First, if a subject doesn't meet the usual criteria for merging, it probably shouldn't be merged as a result of AfD either.
  • If you don't believe an AfD subject Foo is independently notable but merits mention on another article Bar, check to see what coverage of Foo already exists at Bar. If the coverage is sufficient, you should probably vote to redirect (or delete, if Foo is an implausible search term).
Example: The AfD for Ron Burgundy was closed as a merge with Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy#Plot. But as one of the merge voters put it, Ron Burgundy was "completely redundant" to that section. Four months later, it was redirected without merging.

When a merge is appropriate[edit]

  • Subjects that lack independent notability may still deserve mention in another article.
Example: Agnes Skinner was merged (although not through AfD) to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. While consensus was against her having her own article, deletion wasn't necessary (cf. WP:NLISTITEM).
  • Suppose a section of a larger article Bar has been split into an article Foo, and an editor lists Foo at AfD. If you don't think Foo works as its own article, you could vote to merge it back into Bar (some users refer to this as an upmerge).

See also[edit]


Cite error: There are <ref group=N> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}} template (see the help page).